Islamic Halal slaughter has increasingly come under attack from
animal rights activists telling tales of barbaric blood-thirsty ritual
slaughter. There are two distinct issues: there is the vegetarian agenda
which wants to ban all consumption of animal products, and there is the
animal rights lobby which argues for a humane method of
slaughter.

Do animals have rights?

The vegetarian argument is that killing animals for the benefit of
humans is cruel and an infringement of their rights. They put both on the
same level without conceding any superiority to humans over animals. This
argument is seriously flawed, because if animals had rights comparable to
those of humans, they must also have equivalent duties. In other words, we
must be able to blame them and punish them if they violate the rights of
others. It is absurd that it should be considered a crime for humans to
kill a sheep, but natural for a lion to do so. The problem stems from a
misconception of the role of human life within the animal kingdom: a
denial of purposeful creation within a clearly defined hierarchy degrades
humans to the level of any other creature. Yet even then, the argument is
illogical: Why should plants, for example, be denied the same protection
from a violation of the sanctity of their life?

Is Islamic slaughter cruel?

The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid
cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the
throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought
neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the
animal didnít have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the
animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually
achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt
into a sheepís brain or to ring a chickenís neck than to slit its throat?
To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal
feels.

The scientific facts

A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims
through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several
electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all
the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover
for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the
halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck,
cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with
the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The
remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method
as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings
allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart
throughout.

The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG
graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating
that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not
surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not
notice until some time later. The following three seconds were
characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought
about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero
reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still
beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the
spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who
are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does
actually no longer record any sensual messages.

The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious
after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more
peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain
immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal
ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen Ė a
brain death, to put it in laymenís terms Ė the second example first causes
a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there
are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more
blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much
more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter
procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor
belt, if it does not move.

Appearances can deceive

Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic
slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are
actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the
animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes
mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can
deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy
his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic
slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption
means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss
of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

The holistic view

Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of
supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal
welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter.
Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass
consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens
are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are
easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end
consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the
animal and a healthier meat for the consumer.